Peoples homes or vehicles cannot be searched or seized without an oath to a warrant or permission to search, and they can't do unreasonable searches witout proof.
Quotes: "The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."
Potter Stewart
"It is not the breaking of a man's doors and the rummaging of his drawers that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion oh his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offense"
Quote from Justice Joseph P. Bradle
Date Proposed:9/25/1789
Date Ratified:12/15/1791
The 4th amendment is alive but is mostly being ignored by some people.
Court cases about this amendment
Terry vs Ohio,
When the Cleveland Police received an anonymous tip that Dollree Mapp and her daughter were harboring a suspected bombing fugitive, they immediately went to her house and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and under his advice she refused to give them entry because they did not have a warrant. Several hours later, more officers came to her door and demanded that they be permitted to enter her house. After Mapp refused, they forcibly opened a door to the house and proceeded in. Mapp confronted them and demanded to see the search warrant. The police waved a piece of paper in the air (claiming it was the warrant) and Mapp grabbed it and put it down her shirt. The police eventually got it back. The officers then handcuffed her. They then went on to search her entire house and when they reached her basement they found a chest filled with pornographic photos and objects. Mapp claims she was holding the trunk for a friend and was not aware of the contents inside.[1[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio#cite_note-FindLaw-0|]]] The officers arrested Mapp for violating an Ohio law which prohibited the possession of obscene material.[1[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio#cite_note-FindLaw-0|]]] At her trial, Mapp was found guilty based on the evidence that was presented by the police. Mapp's attorney questioned the police about the warrant but they could not show one.
Upon her conviction, Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrantless search. The Court stated that the materials were admissible evidence and explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully taken from an inanimate object (the trunk) and forcibly taken from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction upheld. She then appealed to the Supreme Court of the U.S.
Minnesota State ONLY: Minnesota State vs Fort, May 1, 2003.
Minnesota Supreme Court rules that "consent searches" during traffic stops are unconstitutional because they violate the requirement that searches be reasonable. Searches without reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity are banned.
Illinois Supreme Court Only : Illinois vs Cox, Dec 2002
Illinois State Supreme Court blocks a search pursuant to a dog sniff after a traffic stop. Although the decision is confusingly argued, they appear to invalidate suspicion less dog sniff searches:
"Moreover, were we to accept the State's contention that the dog-sniff test was permissible, we would be endorsing a drug-sniff test at every stop for a traffic violation... In sum, Officer McCormick did not have "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences therefrom," reasonably warranted an extended detention of defendant's vehicle, and the ensuing drug-sniff test. He did not have even a hunch that defendant was engaged in criminal activity to support the call to Deputy Zola. Given these circumstances, if we held that Officer McCormick was justified in calling the canine unit, we would clearly support the view that police officers can resort to the use of canine units at every traffic stop."
Image by Cool Text: Logo and Button Generator - Create Your Own
Amendment Summary
Peoples homes or vehicles cannot be searched or seized without an oath to a warrant or permission to search, and they can't do unreasonable searches witout proof.
Quotes:
"The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."
Potter Stewart
"It is not the breaking of a man's doors and the rummaging of his drawers that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion oh his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offense"
Quote from Justice Joseph P. Bradle
Date Proposed:9/25/1789
Date Ratified:12/15/1791
The 4th amendment is alive but is mostly being ignored by some people.
Court cases about this amendment
Terry vs Ohio,
When the Cleveland Police received an anonymous tip that Dollree Mapp and her daughter were harboring a suspected bombing fugitive, they immediately went to her house and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and under his advice she refused to give them entry because they did not have a warrant. Several hours later, more officers came to her door and demanded that they be permitted to enter her house. After Mapp refused, they forcibly opened a door to the house and proceeded in. Mapp confronted them and demanded to see the search warrant. The police waved a piece of paper in the air (claiming it was the warrant) and Mapp grabbed it and put it down her shirt. The police eventually got it back. The officers then handcuffed her. They then went on to search her entire house and when they reached her basement they found a chest filled with pornographic photos and objects. Mapp claims she was holding the trunk for a friend and was not aware of the contents inside.[1[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio#cite_note-FindLaw-0|]]] The officers arrested Mapp for violating an Ohio law which prohibited the possession of obscene material.[1[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio#cite_note-FindLaw-0|]]] At her trial, Mapp was found guilty based on the evidence that was presented by the police. Mapp's attorney questioned the police about the warrant but they could not show one.
Upon her conviction, Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrantless search. The Court stated that the materials were admissible evidence and explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully taken from an inanimate object (the trunk) and forcibly taken from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction upheld. She then appealed to the Supreme Court of the U.S.
Minnesota State ONLY: Minnesota State vs Fort, May 1, 2003.
Minnesota Supreme Court rules that "consent searches" during traffic stops are unconstitutional because they violate the requirement that searches be reasonable. Searches without reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity are banned.
Illinois Supreme Court Only : Illinois vs Cox, Dec 2002
Illinois State Supreme Court blocks a search pursuant to a dog sniff after a traffic stop. Although the decision is confusingly argued, they appear to invalidate suspicion less dog sniff searches:
"Moreover, were we to accept the State's contention that the dog-sniff test was permissible, we would be endorsing a drug-sniff test at every stop for a traffic violation... In sum, Officer McCormick did not have "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences therefrom," reasonably warranted an extended detention of defendant's vehicle, and the ensuing drug-sniff test. He did not have even a hunch that defendant was engaged in criminal activity to support the call to Deputy Zola. Given these circumstances, if we held that Officer McCormick was justified in calling the canine unit, we would clearly support the view that police officers can resort to the use of canine units at every traffic stop."
http://www.cmacneil.com/pol_images/102008.html
http://cagle.com/working/071016/lane.gif
Click on the link below to play a game about the 4th amendment
http://www.purposegames.com/game/amendment-4-quiz
At least five resources you used, use the Easybib format: Google Video. 09 Mar. 2009 <http://video.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wv>
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 09 Mar. 2009 <http://www.youtube.com/>.
http://images.google.com/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi
"Bill of Rights -- US Constitution." PurposeGames.com - Create & Play Online Games. 09 Mar. 2009 <http://www.purposegames.com/game/bill-of-rights-us-constitution-quiz>.
Five questions about Amendment facts on YOUR page
1. what does the 4th amendment protect?
2. who was the 2nd case against?
3. where was the first case?
4. where was the last case?
5. when was the amendment proposed?
click on the link below for the answers
http://4thamendmentanswers.wikispaces.com/